Two thousand years ago Jesus walked around as the ultimate pragmatist, claiming that truth would set people free. Recent testimony about how the Bush Administration has suppressed scientific information on global warming has become a sad metaphor for how far we have fallen.
The life changing “truth” Jesus spoke of was knowledge through a relationship with God. From what I've read he never tried to trick anyone. He never forced anyone to believe one way or another. He trusted that with enough information people would make the right decision. Compare that to the way President Bush has operated on a myriad of topics, but specifically on the issue of global warming — tactics which have been revealed by recent congressional hearings.
Federal scientists have been pressured to play down global warming.
Climate scientists frequently have been dissuaded from talking to the media about their research.
Interview requests of climate scientists frequently were "routed through the White House" and then turned away or delayed.
Scientific findings have been edited by the White House to reveal more positive findings.
The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee has asked for those documents and, not surprisingly, the White House has been slow to hand them over.
Fear of science is not exclusive to the White House. In an incredible example of cognitive dissonance, Americans spend almost $6000 per person on health care, yet more than half also reject the theory of evolution. We happily enjoy plastic surgery, air travel, and longer life spans, and 13% have never even heard of global warming. Our daily lives are lined with the benefits reaped from science, and we claim not to trust it.
Which principle of Christianity sets it in opposition to science? Why is an increase in truth feared? I don’t recall Jesus ever hiding knowledge. In-fact, most sermons you hear probably revolve around Jesus’ role in expanding God’s revelation, and then letting people make their own decisions based on that information.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - ProfEssays
Actually the unrevised versions of Christianity are incompatible with science.
2 - Nancy
IMO science simply lends a greater wonder to the marvel of the Deity's creations; in no way does it detract or contradict ... unless you take the Bible literally, which of course is the entire problem. Perhaps those who disbelieve science should be disallowed from benefitting from it: no phones, electricity, cars, frozen or canned foods ... they'd basically have to live on a level of "natural" technology even more basic than the strictest Amish groups.
3 - troll
Nancy says - *IMO science simply lends a greater wonder to the marvel of the Deity's creations*
or maybe...that humans create deities lends a greater wonder to the marvel of the natural world - the object of science
4 - duane
Nancy says: Perhaps those who disbelieve science should be disallowed from benefitting from it
To be fair, most people of faith don't reject science in its totality. They just reject that which appears to conflict with their beliefs, such as evolution. I'm sure they are willing to believe in chemistry, for example, since they use aspirins and pay the occasional visit to their pharmacist.
Maybe they should be disallowed from benefitting from evolution. (insert joke here)
5 - D'oh
There has always been internal conflicts within the church when it comes to science, just ask Galileo, among others.
I think it started as trying to control information "for the public good", and later became just another way to control. Then the Dark Ages ended, the printing press came and regular people began to read.
THAT began the battle in earnest.
It doesn't help with the silliness of the "original sin" concept, this does quite a bit to undermine the rest of the church's positions on anything related to science, for obvious reasons.
The two do not have to be mutually exclusive, and have not been during some points in history, but where science stays out of the religion business, it appears that religion just won't leave the younger sibling of science alone, due to a fit of jealousy.
Let's see if I have some linkage for this one...
the Tao of D'oh
6 - Nancy
That too, troll.
7 - FK
Update: They just issued a report which says global warming is likely (90% chance) man-made and unstoppable.
And, not surprisingly, the new report will not
change current policy.
8 - D'oh
Good stuff, Fred, thanks for the linkage.
For troll - you put up a nice string theory link, there's a story touching on all that today that is pertinent to your link, and kind of on this topic.
Check this bit out.
9 - Dave Nalle
The article would be alot more effective if it included at least SOME links to sources supporting all this information on the suppression of global warming theory by the administration. Just asserting it may fly with fellow believers and conspiracy buffs, but it's not enough to get taken seriously in an article on an open forum like this.
Hell, just a link to transcripts of the hearings mentioned in the article would have been nice.
Dave
10 - Martin Lav
"The Truth Shall Set You Free"
The problem with our society is that we don't really practice truth at all.
Jesus meant that you must be honest with yourself in all cases and therefore avoid the feelings of guilt and shame, which prevent you from the feelings that "Heaven" is supposed to create (in you).
We live by untruths, we stoke them in our society, we allow ourselves to rationalize them in order to maintain that feeling of Heaven on Earth (meaning our feeling of contentment within ourselves). But you really can't lie to yourself.
We cheat on taxes.
We cheat in sports.
- steroids
- ball scuffing
Speed in cars.
Run red lights.
Bend the truth.
I overslept.
11 - Truther
The whole of Jesus' statement is:
If you hold to my teachings, than you really are my disciples. Then you shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free.
Why do authors who like to quote this line use it for their own needs and forget the "hold to my teachings" part?
12 - chancelucky
here's at least one link
link
in 2002 W dismissed a report by his own EPA that Global Warming was likely the product of human activity. "I read the report put out by the bureaucracy," Mr. Bush said
13 - FK
Truther, because that would be too long for the headline. I don't think leaving out the first half of the verse alters my point or the meaning of the verse one bit. I explained that Jesus meant "truth" as a true relationship with God. And I tied that concept in with that you can't claim to know or love God if you don't know or love of believe in the very things you can see--which, in one example, my example, is science.
14 - FK
Point well taken, Dave. I can't re-edit the article now but here are some links.
Comitte asks for the altered global warming documents.
The
committe's findings
15 - Truther
My point was that Jesus didn't encourage us to seek the truth of this world, as in science or the best political candidate. He told his followers that he IS the truth.
16 - D'oh
Truther, that would all depend on whose version of what he said is read.
You might be interested in what this site has to say on the topic, especially the Gospel of Thomas.
"those with two good ears had better listen"
the Tao of D'oh
17 - Zedd
Jesus meant that you must be honest with yourself in all cases and therefore avoid the feelings of guilt and shame, which prevent you from the feelings that "Heaven" is supposed to create (in you).
Beautiful!
There is a constant internal conflict regarding allegiances to important people in your life who have taught you theology vs your own common sense. Many remain closeted in their commitment to what they know vs what they are supposed to believe.
Its the same with party affiliation and most self defining associations, I presume.
18 - D'oh
Zedd, that's why I tend to go with these thoughts on the subject.
19 - Doug Hunter
It's interesting to compare religion in the context of global warming. The proponents and propagators of the environmental hysteria operate very similiarly to their more traditional religious counterparts.
You have the martyrs, those willing to self righteously sacrifice their lifestyle for the 'greater good'. You have the prophets and doomsday cults, those nutjobs who constantly warn of impending disaster and even time after time when they are proven wrong simply adjust the timeframe and the reason for armegeddon. You have the preachers, like our dear poster, out crying for anyone who will listen and chastizing the unbelievers. You have rituals, and gods, and demons, and sins, and fanatical terrorists, and self righteous stuck up assholes, it's all very familiar and creepy.
Global climate change is not an impending catastophe, it's a part of nature that while, certainly being augmented by human activity, is completely inevitable. Carbon emissions could be viewed just as easily be saving us from the next scheduled ice age as they could be destroying the planet.
The reason, you, joe public are being whipped into a frenzy are twofold.
1) It makes a good news story (like fires, death, and terror)
2) It has the potential to put government in control of industry and put trillions of dollars of wealth at the disposal of politicians, bureacrats, and of course climate research scientists.
If the public is silly enough to fall for this latest snake oil, perhaps it really is better their wealth is being 'safeguarded' for them by the government.
20 - D'oh
Doug, all I can do is ask if you have seen this story that hit the streets today, much less the rest of the data.
The fallacious conflation in your second sentence, reveals much.
21 - Dave Nalle
Yeah, Doug. Read D'Oh's link. You completely forgot to include the UN's power grabbing motivation for supporting global warming.
Dave
22 - Dave Nalle
We live by untruths, we stoke them in our society, we allow ourselves to rationalize them in order to maintain that feeling of Heaven on Earth (meaning our feeling of contentment within ourselves).
Speak for yourself, Martin.
But you really can't lie to yourself.
Are you familiar with Moonraven?
Dave
23 - Doug Hunter
I've read the information and don't doubt that warming is ocurring. I know from our previous scare that we're overdue for another ice age. Did you ever consider that perhaps our carbon emissions are saving us from that? Did you ever consider that change doesn't necessarily mean bad?
I don't see how the world will be much different at + or - a few degrees. Life will go on. The only way to not effect the environment is for a few billion humans to suddenly pass from the face of the earth. Environmentalists have helped that cause. Banning good anti-mesquito chemicals directly costs the lives of hundreds of thousands or millions. Biofuels/ethanol will create a shortage of food that will increase starvation. The percentage of global GDP diverted to try and maintain our current climate will degrade billions of peoples standard of living increasing poverty, starvation, etc.
I'd be more willing to support actions if there were a good comparison of what it might cost to deal with the consequences versus preventing the warming entirely. I somehow imagine that with all of mankind's adaptability a few inch rise in the oceans over a period of a hundred years is something we can manage to live through. For instance it might be simpler to just change low level zoning requirements under the assumption that the ocean will eventually rise. All new buildings and construction should be on higher ground...problem 1 solved. (no one should be building at or below sea level as is, see Katrina and the tsunami for evidence)
24 - Bliffle
Duane supplies his own joke: "To be fair, most people of faith don't reject science in its totality. They just reject that which appears to conflict with their beliefs,..."
ROTFWL...will return when I catch my breath..
25 - Bliffle
Bingo! Lav hits the nail on the head:
"The problem with our society is that we don't really practice truth at all. "
And a good thing, too!
What we do is counterpose lies of varying plausibility. With different intents and malice, too.
Wife: "Why are you late? I've been waiting an hour!"
Lie #1: she was a half hour late herself, having known husband would be an hour late so she could kill two birds with one stone: humiliate husband and dawdle at the shoe store.
Lie #2: she doesn't care 'why' he's late, she just wants to up the guilty feeling.
Husband: "I had a flat tire!"
Lie: he stopped at the tavern with the secretary to get some quality time inspecting her cleavage while feigning interest in her conversation (which qualifies as another lie).
Wife: "but my friend Alice saw your car in front of the Dew Drop Inn a half hour ago!"
Lie: wife saw the car there herself, but the experienced player of the Lying Game knows to insert another player as a proxy, thus accomplishing two goals: invent a witness to opponents perfidy, and create a controlled stage for a future manipulation, and hide the fact that seeing the car gave her an opportunity to dawdle while maintaining the morality advantage.
Husband: "Alice is a born liar. She once told me...."
Lie: improvised is worst, prepared ahead of time is more effective.
Well, you know how it works. Everyone (even a reclusive nerd) has been a child, parent, brother, employee, employer, etc., which has thrown them into the perilous position of Having To Deal With Other People and run the risk (or pleasure, for some) of playing the lying game. My 2nd wife was a master: sometimes I was struck dumb by the sheer audacity and thoroughness of her lies.
It's hard to survive the Lying Game, even the 'winner' is destroyed by the nuclear blast. To really succeed at lying you have to believe your own lies and construct imaginary worlds in advance. Believing your own lies is called 'psychosis', and that's what happened to 2nd wife. Totally bonkers.
But the player who has reflected on his Lying Game experience takes a different approach to his personal victory that doesn't involve demolishing the opponent with a nuke.
For example:
Husband: "I'm terribly sorry to be late - I was held up at the office at the last minute."
Wife: "I just got here 2 minutes before you, and was relieved to see you were late too, because I got heldup in traffic".
...
Lies, lies, lies. But they will probably have a more salubrious evening rather than go to dinner each one seething with resentment.
Human society would degenerate into snarling murderous perpetual animosity without euphimisms. It's just a question of intent and the opportunity one leaves the other party to Do Good in amends without being humiliated into fake good behaviour.